Hacker News Reader

> A streamer (...) says that if you are (...) watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically.

Sounds like pandering to the audience. Performing better then 90% of people makes you a top 10% player.

Self soothing about how what you like to do in your spare time makes you better then others is not making you any favors.

It doesn't matter how much effort you put into being effective. In fact I'd say living and breathing software engineering will make you a less effective software engineer than someone who also understands management, psychology, economics, etc.

I knew I should've been an asterisk / joke about that! :)

Yeah, I could certainly see that but I disagree with your assessment that it is just pandering or self-soothing.

Seeking out any external information in your off-time / outside from that activity gives you the edge against people who just show up and only engage and think about the activity while doing it.

If you are watching basketball play-by-plays or even better, recordings of your own games (read: consuming transformative versions of games just outside your skill vs passively consuming a professional game) outside of basketball practice, there is a good chance you will pick up or develop ideas of how to apply that to your own game.

Yes, passively watching someone play WoW has a low chance of making a world-first raider but watching a world-first raider do raiding with the intention of picking new ideas up will expose you to ideas and methods you won't otherwise be exposed to through normal gameplay.

By listening to other engineers speak, you are being exposed to problems and solutions you would have had to encounter and solve yourself (or possibly never have so you will never cross pollinate ideas)

> you will never cross pollinate

See there's the mentality I'm calling self soothing. Your mental model of what makes someone excel seems to build off of what you like to do. One thing is to pursue extra information, another is to believe the sole way to excel is by doing the things you do.

There is plenty of evidence that just practicing is a bad way to learn things.

I think it depends on how you measure top 10% in a video game (especially the MMORPGs Asmongold plays), being a top 10% player by stats is a function of play time and 'grind'.

People actively looking at top 10% players can have more game knowledge and build efficiency than people who just grind bigger numbers.

Being an "effective" software engineer also depends on your definition of effective. Mark Zuckerberg was clearly an effective software engineer, but was he in the top 5% of engineers?

People judging their abilities by adjacent (and loosely correlated) metrics is a road to unhappiness.

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to become a good measure"

I got to top 10% of Trackmania players (extremely competitive) just by watching Wirtual’s streams. Couple of advices (and learning to implement them) were worth more than hours of (bad) grinding.

And he is „only” in like 99,9th percentile in time trials, not even competing in top tournaments.

Same: when Path of Exile was less popular and had races I was often able to finish top 10% (or even much better) by just copying techniques from streamers who were good.

The concentration of knowledge that was available in a (successful player's) stream was far more useful than what I could gain from personal experience playing alone.

If you define "player" in this context as "person who bought the game and opened it at least once" then becoming top 90% in any given game really doesn't take much. If Steam achievements are accurate just playing the game for an hour will make you above average. Most people quit before that and thus have no time to learn the game.

I still agree with your last paragraph. In gaming as in professional life, a T-shaped skillset is really useful. Having broad knowledge and experience, even if it's mostly shallow, is incredibly useful.

> Most software engineers aren't listening to podcasts about software engineering. If you are religiously listening to and learning from podcasts, that makes you more suspectible to being a higher percentile performer in software engineering.

It's generally true that seeking more information can lead to increased knowledge, yes.

But I've also met a lot of people in my career who can confidently recite factoids from hundreds of podcasts, books, and blog posts they've read but then struggle when they have to tackle real-world problems. Podcasts don't substitute for experience and someone with real-world experience is going to run circles around someone who merely listened to a lot of podcasts or read a lot of books.

Podcasts have also become a trap for inexperienced engineers in recent years. It's easy to listen to a lot of podcasts with guests who are trying to flex their knowledge or look extra smart by claiming their subject is the only way to do something. Then you end up with juniors trying to make complex microservice architectures with over-engineered single page app frontends for trivial tasks because that's what they've been learning about from podcasts. Podcasts try to capture the most exciting topics, whereas many engineering problems are better solved by boring old technology. Without experience to know the difference, podcasts can really lead people astray.

> A streamer that I occasionally tune into (Asmongold) says that if you are seeking information outside of the game such as watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically.

Influencers telling their followers that following them will provide a leg up on the competition is the oldest marketing trick in the book. :) I'm sure some amount of stream watching can provide some learning, but for fast-twitch games I'll put my money on the player who has more hours of practice over the player who watches a lot of streams of other people playing.

> Most software engineers aren't listening to podcasts about software engineering. If you are religiously listening to and learning from podcasts, that makes you more suspectible to being a higher percentile performer in software engineering.

Does it though?

I don't feel like listening to podcasts is a particularly good way to build software engineering skill.

The same way listening to a podcast about art doesn't make you a better painter nor listening to a podcast about football will make you a better athlete.

If I listen to a podcast on let's say, algorithms.

They discuss an algorithm I'm currently working on and some research papers on said algorithms.

If I didn't know about those research papers I now have more knowledge than I had before and can improve more than someone who didn't have said knowledge.

Replace algorithm with framework, design pattern, type of software etc...

It alone doesn't make you better just like reading a boom wouldn't make you a better software developer. Actually absorbing the information and using it to improve would.

The same can be said for every single one of the fields you mentioned.

Sharing knowledge using spoken word is no different from sharing knowledge using any other media.

I agree, I think building things is the main thing that makes someone better. So building side projects and experimenting with different tech besides your work.

Podcasts I think are quite superficial. They can only be beneficial if you are critical about what they are saying, but to be critical you need to have already made something yourself. Otherwise you are blindly learning facts like you said.

It's easy to be in the top 99% in a competition nobody cares about.

Try being in the top 1% of basketball players if you're under 5'9".

Easier said than done.

Absolutely. The article hints at this problem by saying 95th percentile is easy but the grind from 95th to 99th is more difficult, requiring explicit effort and reflection on your process.

To use a gaming metaphor that hopefully lands, the XP grind from level 1 to 92 in Runscape is the same XP amount as the XP needed to go from 92 to 99 [0].

It is also illustrated with the Pareto Principle and the 90/10 rule where the final portion takes the most resources. Someone can easily become top 10% basketball player given the right training. 27M people played basketball recreationally in the US in 2021 [1], you only need to be in the top 2,700,000 players to be a top 10% player. There's only about 500 people in the NBA in a given year [2] so they represent approximately the top 0.0018% of organized basketball players.

If you include people who play rarely or in pick-up games, the odds of a top 10% 5'9 player jump drastically. 5'9 isn't that short either, it's roughly the median height of an American man.

[0]: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Experience/Table [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191632/participants-in-b.... [2]: https://www.hoopsbeast.com/total-nba-players/

> To use a gaming metaphor that hopefully lands, the XP grind from level 1 to 92 in Runscape is the same XP amount as the XP needed to go from 92 to 99 [0].

Do you get more XP on average when you're a higher level?

It really depends skill to skill, but generally yes. However, and keeping in mind this again varies a lot skill to skill, the increases are not even the same order of magnitude as the scaling for the xp required.

You're thinking about the _NBA_ when you think of basketball players. You can _easily_ be in the top 5% of _people that play basketball_ just by playing at the gym once or twice a month, even if you're short.

I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of people who play basketball.

Sure, if you count everyone who's ever touched a basketball in their life - it might not be hard to be in the top 5%.

If you counting anyone who has played at least within the last 3 months - it's not going to be so easy.

In StarCraft the reverse it true. There are many who get information outside the game by watching, but don't actually play that much (1v1 in particular). Just by playing it puts you in a high percentile of SC2 players (that used to play or only play co-op and other forms).

I've brought this up before and got down voted, but I agree. Competition starts at the 90th percentile. Everything before that is casual play and fundamentals.